Issue #34: Protect our Airwaves - Can YOU help?

This is the forum discussion for Issue #34, linked here, which features a guest column by Ria Jairam (N2RJ) on the topic of threats to our frequencies, and the ARRL's role (past and present). Perhaps you have some ideas for how individual hams can contribute to advocacy, or positive/negative comments (all are welcome) about our topic this issue. Post 'em here! Dave Jensen, W7DGJ

 

Thanks from me to Ria for an excellent contribution to this issue. One note I'll make is that the Spectrum Defense fund page offers some goodies for contributions. It didn't work for me . . . if you contribute (and I hope you will) see what you can do to follow up and get your nice mug. Dave, W7DGJ

 

@N2RJ Great article, Ria!

 

It was an honor and a privilege writing this article! I hope you learned something and inspired you to help preserve our hobby.

 

What specifically would be advocated by this proposed PAC?

Note" 'Advocacy Follows Justification"(AFJ).

Could we have some examples of what would be advocated, presumably at a higher and better funded level than undertaken by the ARRL? Remember: ALL such advocacy only has the possibility for success if it addresses specifics of how those points of advocacy map to the statement of mission of Part 97.

For example, let's presume that the HF bands become 'in play' both in the US and internationally, say 10 years from now. How will such a PAC--up front, long before 2034-- demonstrate effective spectral allocation mapping at HF (that is, we use the bands so allocated, full up)to the Part 97 mission? In 2024; 2025?

Clearly, at present, we do NOT fully use the HF spectrum so allocated, and with the emphasis of FT8, are actually using less of it than in prior decades.

Prevention beats asking for return, of course.

As to license fees... a Big Mac meal costs $17. How do we justify asking for, example, an appeal of $35 fees?

73
Chip W1YW

 

Is the spectrum defense fund really separate? I've heard the donations just go into the general fund.

 

Thanks, Ria!

 

Donations can be earmarked for the SDF. Been this way for many years,

 

Hi Chip, I'll let Ria respond with any comments she has about what might be accomplished in a different vehicle, ie. a PAC. My comment on this is that no one has suggested we try and get a repeal on the $35 license fee. It was an example, only, of how issues affecting radio amateurs can sneak into legislation when you aren't looking. PS - We sure don't pay $17 for a Big Mac meal here in Arizona. There'd be a revolt.

 

Big Mac price tracker.

https://pantryandlarder.com/mccheapest

 

The issue of the $35 fee has come up on the Zed many times. The notion of allowing free payment for those of limited income, handicaps, or certain age brackets has been argued without any effective resolution.

A separate PAC is a fine idea. But it must come in with requested solutions to extant problems AND prevention of future ones, to be effective, IMO.

Loss of spectrum can only be ameliorated--that is, loss in the future--by anticipating the problem and providing evidence of high duty cycle band use. Otherwise, the FCC says:'what exactly do hams need, and no more, to meet the mission statement of Part 97'. Right now the answer is--very little of the allocated HF/MF spectrum, based on present use.

Believe me, there are *(^*&^ who are monitoring the ham bands and mapping spectral 'use' as part of long term studies for future proposed use of some of our bands. By others. It happening as we speak, at the top of the sunspot cycle, where, presumably, contacts are most generous in number and spectral use is highest.

I know this because I have had requests for wideband antennas for same. Which I don't make for this (monitoring)application ( no surprise there...)

73
Chip W1YW

 

Meal, not samwitch;-)

 

Agree with you Chip. A cheaper solution is to get more people active and on the air. Change the scenario with hundreds of thousands of Tech license level hams who might occasionally pick up their HT but who are otherwise not moving up in license category and interests . . . Use the bands. Have fun. That's one solution, eh? Dave

 

A PAC can very, very effective if it has the data to justify its requests;-)

Again, Ria presents a terrific idea.

 

Right now the ARRL has limited capability to lobby Congress. A PAC for example could take political contributions to support candidates that are friendly to amateur radio.

The biggest problem with legislation and the ARRL’s legislative efforts is finding sponsors and co-sponsors for bills. This is a lot easier if PACs can support them. ARRL as a 501c3 cannot do this. ARRL also can’t run political ads, but a PAC can.